An article by J. H. Webster
The term 'imprecatory' is applied to certain Psalms and other portions of Scripture that invoke or threaten evil upon the wicked, or contain solemn warnings of the inevitable punishment of sin. It must be admitted that many of these passages do contain imprecations and utter solemn and awful curses against the incorrigible sinner. We might, perhaps, with more propriety term these Psalms the "Justice" Psalms, but we accept the terms commonly applied to them, confident that no matter how severely they may be characterized there is abundant justification for their presence in the Word of God.
The problem is to find some satisfactory solution for the spirit of apparent harshness and severity expressed; some explanation that will answer the objections and allay the misgivings of even devout Christians as to the propriety of using them, either in reading or singing, in the worship of God. It is not strange that, especially in modern times, these Psalms have been subjected in many instances to unmeasured condemnation as the fruit of "a savage spirit," or as expressions of personal vindictiveness, or as the hasty utterances of men while their souls were "storm-tossed by passion," or as "inconsistent with the spirit and teaching of the New Testament." Were we to accept these grave charges as true, no course would be open to us save to expunge these odes at once and forever from the Word of God.
No explanation has thus far been proposed that is universally satisfactory, and doubtless none ever will be, nor is it the aim of this paper to attempt anything so ambitious. It is proposed, however, to examine some of the more important solutions offered from time to time in the discussion of this subject and to draw some lessons from them that will serve to aid us in forming our opinion, and help confirm our confidence in the divine declaration that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
It has been urged from time to time of Augustine down that imprecations do not express "a desire for the sinner's doom, but merely predict it." This view is based on the fact that the Hebrew has no proper tense to express the optative. But both grammar and context require the optative or imperative rendering in so many cases that this view has been practically abandoned, and properly so, since it savors too much of evasion, and only pushes the difficulty a step further back.
[ Return to the top ]
Others maintain that the passages in question are to be understood in a spiritual sense, "that the reference to individuals is not real, but imaginary, assumed for the time being, and for an ultimate purpose wholly different from what lies on the face of them; that is, we are to apply these various maledictions to our spiritual foes, imprecating on them the terrible calamities apparently, but only apparently, intended for the personal enemies of the sacred writers." That these Psalms may be used frequently, and with great propriety at times, against our spiritual enemies no one, we believe, will deny, but as an explanation of the question at issue this view utterly fails. Saul, Doeg, Ahithophel, and others of like character were very much and very banefully in evidence in the flesh.
Another and somewhat popular explanation regards the imprecations as expressions of personal vindictiveness. Since most of them are ascribed to David, this view weighs heavily against his character as a man, a ruler, and a child of God. The recorded facts of David's life compel us to refuse it, even had we no other evidence. Forced into active participation in public affairs from his struggle with Goliath until his death as king of all Israel, compelled to war at various times for his life, his kingdom, and the cause of God, frequently beset by foes among his own countrymen, plotted against by his own familiar friend, made to feel the bitterness of filial ingratitude and rebellion, subjected to the fiercest assaults of reproach and slander because he was the foremost representative of God and all that was noblest in the human aspirations of his day, to say nothing of the fierce personal temptations and trials besetting men in power; a careful study of his conduct in all these trying vicissitudes of life leaves us astonished at his moderation and singular freedom from the spirit of personal revenge in his dealings with his foes. His magnamious treatment of Saul when that malignant king was in his power, his resignation and forbearance under the curses of Shimei, his patience with the turbulent Joab, his generosity to Abner, and his long-suffering and love for the ingrate Absalom, all prove that whatever faults nay be pointed out in the character of this great man, personal vindictiveness was not one of them. Were these Imprecatory Psalms the language of mere personal animosity to his foes they would mark David as one of the most savage, profane, and cruel characters known to history, and not only so, but as likewise being destitute of the slightest vestiges of prudence or care for his own reputation; for the most profane and cruel among men value the good opinion of their fellows sufficiently to deter them from writing down their weakness or wickedness. But in this matter the testimony of God is greater: "I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after Mine own heart, who shall fulfill all My will." It is needless to say that the divine encomium would not be pronounced upon the character of a man who was dominated by that spirit of carnal revenge which is condemned as explicitly and forcibly in the old Testament as in the New. Moreover, we have explicit statements of the motives governing the authors of these Psalms. Says Hibbard, "They constantly professed their motive and object in praying for the destruction of their enemies to be the protection of the righteous, the honor of God, and the accomplishment of His gracious purposes in the earth." Tholuck in his Commentary on the Psalms uses similar language. Take Ps. 35 as an example. Read the descriptions it contains of the malice and persistence with which the foes of the Psalmist "sought after his life." They were evidently opposing him and seeking his destruction when he was engaged in some causes of great public concern involving the truth of God and the public welfare. He prays for the confusion of his enemies in order that "the Lord may be magnified." That this prayer was unmixed with any spirit of personal revenge is evident from the noble words: "But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother." Statements of similar motives abound, and in no case can an impure or impious one be designated as the source of these so-called vindictive or Imprecatory Psalms.
But the fact that David spoke by divine inspiration ought to settle for the Christian at least this charge of personal vindictiveness. Let us hear his own testimony to this effect as found in 2 Sam 23:1-2 (and the divine estimate of his character justifies us in admitting him as a competent and trustworthy witness): "David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." The testimony of our Lord is to the same effect. In three Gospels He quotes from Ps 110, ascribing it to David. In two of these places He asserts that David spake under divine direction: "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord" (Mat 22:43)? "David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). This Psalm, too, is classed among the imprecatory. Peter asserts (Acts 1: 16) that the Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David concerning Judas, and quotes from Pss. 69 and 109, which are preëminently imprecatory. To the objection interposed that Peter used this language before Pentecost, and therefore did not speak by inspiration, it may be replied that his language after that event indicates no change in his opinion of David's inspiration. In Acts 4:25 the Second Psalm is ascribed to God: "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage?" The writer of the Hebrews quotes from Ps 95, and asserts that the Holy Spirit speaks through David. To the statements often made that this is all ex parte evidence in favor of inspiration, that even Christ Himself as a man was so limited in His attainments as to frequently err in His allusions to Old Testament writers and writings, or that He spoke with indulgence to popular errors, we may say, first of all, that the burden of proof rests on those who urge such views, and second, that He "who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" was also "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3, 4). If this be admitted (and who can reasonably doubt the fact of the resurrection), then the divinity of our Lord is proved. He is the Son of God, invested with all the attributes of divinity, among them infinite wisdom. Therefore, His testimony on all matters, even the inspiration of the Imprecatory Psalms, must be accepted as decisive. To charge the writers of them with an un-Christian spirit aims a blow not merely against the character of David, but against the spotless character and infinite perfection of Him by Whose authority, and under the influence of Whose Holy Spirit, David wrote.
[ Return to the top ]
Another explanation prevalent at present, and somewhat similar to the foregoing, declares that the imprecations of the Psalms "are to be accounted for by the spirit of the old dispensation, not to be defended by that of the new." They are, according to this view, expressions of the "un-Christian and un-spiritual element" of the inferior and defective Jewish economy. This view is held with various modifications, not only by those openly hostile to the Old Testament, but also by its professed friends. The latter, "deeming it vain to justify the imprecations, endeavor to save the divine authority of the Bible by insisting on the inferiority of the Jewish economy." They allude to the new commandment of Christ as if it were unknown to the Old Testament saints. Space does not permit a detailed discussion of the relative values of the two dispensations, nor is it necessary in order to form a judgment on this view. Suffice to say, in the words of Dr. Pressly: "It is an error of very pernicious tendency to represent one part of the Word of God as contradictory to another. It is doubtless true that the mind of God is more fully and clearly revealed in one part of His Word than in another. But this is a very different thing from saying that one part of the Word of God tends to fill the mind with passions which are contrary to the new commandment of loving our enemies. The duty of loving our enemies is enforced by a new example and new motives, and our obligation to perform this duty is set forth in a new light under the gospel; but the duty itself is not new, nor is it by any means peculiar to the gospel. The Scribes and Pharisees, who made void the law of God by their tradition, did indeed teach the abhorrent doctrine, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy.' But there is no such doctrine countenanced in any part of the Word of God. The law of God is, like Himself, unchangeable, and it always required that we should love our enemies. 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself' is a summary of what it requires in so far as our duty to our fellow-man is concerned. All this was required under the legal dispensation, and nothing more than this is required under the gospel."
Nor are the teachings of the New Testament regarding incorrigible sinners any less severe than those of the Old. Witness the language of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees: "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" The Apostle Peter denounced judgment on Ananias and Sapphira, and the event proved the judgment to be of God. "Thy money perish with thee" were his words to Simon. The Apostle Paul in writing to the Galatians invokes a curse on those who might preach any other gospel than he had preached unto them. He commands the Corinthian Church, in the case of the incestuous person, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver the offender unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh." So with Hymencus and Alexander. He prays that the Lord would "reward Alexander the coppersmith according to his works." He indicts Elymas as a "child of the devil" and an "enemy of all righteousness," announcing the blindness that immediately falls upon him. The writer of Hebrews argues that if the fuller light and greater privileges of the New Testament be neglected, the judgments of God will increase upon sinners with proportionate intensity (Heb 10:26-31). Our Lord Himself utters solemn and awful denunciations against the avaricious and hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees. In His parables He teaches in language that cannot be mistaken the guilt and everlasting punishment of the wicked. He predicts a doom more fearful than that of Tyre, Sidon, or Sodom on the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. Turn to that remarkable passage in the Revelation, where "the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held" are represented as praying for vengeance: "They cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" This is the prayer of the "spirits of just men made perfect," dwelling in the presence of the living God; yet they pray for vengeance, nor is their prayer denied, but only delayed a little.
Surely these passages prove that the spirit and attitude of both dispensations towards sin are the same. If there be any difference, the candid reader must confess that the expressions of God's wrath against sin contained in the New Testament are more explicit, more solemn, more terrible, than those of the Old. The revelation of the "wrath of the Lamb" finds its fullest development and expression in the closing pages of the New Testament. The unchangeable God is the author of both dispensations; therefore we find in them identity of spirit and teaching. Both express His holy detestation of sin and determination to punish it. Both teach the doctrine of atonement for sin. And what is the doctrine of atonement if it is not a most emphatic declaration of God's purpose to punish sin. In view of these facts, we cannot accept an explanation that is so utterly at variance with the truth.
[ Return to the top ]
In the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1844 Professor B. B. Edwards advanced an explanation of this question, which was adopted by Kitto, and favorably reviewed in the latter editions of Horne's Introduction. It essential features are as follows: The imprecations are to be explained by "an original elementary principle of our nature that fills us with resentment against atrocious crimes, imperatively demands their punishment, and it is not quieted until the welfare of the criminal has been disturbed in some proportion to the injury he has inflicted on society. A primary element of this principle is indignation, a spontaneous feeling of anger towards the evildoer, not preventable and prior to all deliberation. It is outraged nature that will have vent. Another and chief element is the sense of justice. When a crime of extraordinary atrocity goes unpunished, we feel that justice has been defrauded of its dues. We are indignant that such a wrong should remain unredressed. While the crime remains unatoned, we have a feeling, not only of insecurity, but that justice has been violated. Public order has been disturbed, a shock given to the common sense of rectitude. This feeling is not momentary, as the indignant or compassionate feeling may be. It grows stronger with the lapse of time. Reflection adds to its intensity. Deliberation shows its reasonableness. When a great outrage has been perpetrated, nothing will calm the perturbation of our moral nature but the infliction of a penalty. A voice within us calls imperatively for reparation, and what we crave by an irrepressible instinct of our moral nature, may we not, on fit occasions, express in language?
"In all ages and nations and amid all classes of society this universal principle has manifested itself. Whenever the voice of a brother's blood has cried from the ground, it has found an answering echo in every bosom. Nor is this principle attended with any private malice. The absorbing emotion is for the good of society. We have the persuasion that if the criminal escape, the bonds that hold men together will be weakened, if they be not destroyed. The utterance of this moral feeling is the utterance of humanity within us, an expression of sympathy with the well-being of the race. The connection of this principle with the imprecations of the Psalms and other portions of Scripture is obvious. If it does not account for all, it still lies at the foundation of a large portion of them. In other words, these passages are justified by a primary and innocent feeling of our nature."
Will not this principle explain the famous One Hundred and Thirty-Seventh Psalm? Is not the resentment that glows in its closing verses not only proper and natural, but just? Hengstenberg says that "the Psalmist only prays for that which the Lord had often declared was to be done, what lay grounded on the eternal laws of recompensing divine righteousness." The psalmist here does not rashly break out into curses and threats, but only acts as a divine herald to confirm former predictions. Isaiah's prediction concerning Babylon states that "their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes." The part played by the soldiers of Edom in the sack and destruction of Jerusalem is described and condemned in the prophecies of Ezekiel and Obadiah. God's purpose to visit Edom with condign punishment is clearly declared: "For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever." Serving in the army of Nebuchadnezzar, these fierce warriors showed no mercy to Jerusalem. Their cry was: "Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof." The Jewish mothers saw their little ones dashed against the stones by these bloodthirsty enemies, who delighted in the slaughter. Was it any wonder that the request of their captors to sing the songs of Zion recalled that awful day of blood and carnage when their beloved city fell, that it emphasized the wretchedness of the present? Their city was in ruins, their temple destroyed, the Church of God in exile, and Babylon, the enemy of their nation and God, triumphant. Was it any wonder that a spirit of just resentment should also fill their hearts and find expression in song? The singer voices the spirit of Jewish patriotism, as well as the sentiment of the Jewish Church. Was it any wonder, and was it any wrong, that they sang in this song of praise what God had already declared in prophecy to be His will? The Psalm contains a prediction of the utter destruction of Babylon, the oppressor of the Church, in figurative language borrowed from the customs of savage warfare. To say that it indorses and rejoices in the destruction of innocent children is to say what it does not say. It simply declares that the coming destroyers of Babylon would rejoice in the work of destroying her, even as she had rejoiced in the destruction of Jerusalem. In short, this Psalm predicts the certain coming and completeness of divine retribution.
[ Return to the top ]
While we believe that Dr. Edwards' view is satisfactory so far it goes, and that the imprecations rise from a sense of justice, indignation against wrong-doing, and compassion for the wronged, we are, however, persuaded that they are not merely expressions of this sense of justice as developed in the hearts of the men who penned them. David, for example, was a type and spokesman of Christ, and the Imprecatory Psalms are expressions of the infinite justice of the God-Man, of His indignation against wrong-doing, of His compassion for the wronged. They reveal the feelings of His heart and the sentiments of His mind regarding sin. They represent His attitude as the King and Judge of His Church. It is when we seek the key of each Book of Scripture in its relation to the person or character or work of Christ that we have most success in finding its significance. This is preëminently true of the Book of Psalms. Other Books may dwell more on His history or other topics relating to Him, but this Book reveals His heart, His love for His Church and people, His hatred of sin. Here we have the deep intensity of His emotions in His struggle against all His and our enemies, here the words that are so frequently ascribed or applied to Him in the New Testament, here the words describing His betrayal by Judas, and the agonies of His death on the cross, here the language in which He dismissed His spirit. It has been well said that "Christ Himself is the best key to the Psalms." It does not surprise us to learn that the Apostolic Church regarded them, even the imprecatory, as the voice of Christ.
The principle advocated is that these "vindictive" Psalms voice the feelings and sentiments that animate Christ in His struggle with the incorrigible enemies of His Kingdom and His determination to punish them. Working on this principle, we feel sure that Psalm-singers will have no reason to complain that there is anything in this great autobiography of Him Who is "the way, the truth, and the life" unsuited either to their sermons or experience.
|
